Wow, someone needs to pull their head out of the sand. Cable wants to be the sole provider of how you and I view programming -- everything from where we choose to watch to when.

I presume you mean me. My head is not in the sand, but I was formerly n the CATV industry, and I still retain close ties to individuals in the industry, including a number of General Managers and some senior officers of a number of CATV corporations. No one in that industry could possibkly care less what you as a consumer watches or when, as long as you pay for the programming. Now no doubt you are going to scream about the fact they want every user to pay as much as posssible for the services, whether they make use of them or not. To that I can only respond, "Of course they do!!". There isn't a single profit based businesss on earth who does not want to charge the maximum the market will bear for their goods and services while simultaneously reducing the overhead costs of producing those services. It's not a hidden agenda. It's the entire point of all business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylab

Go over to the avsforum

'Been there, done that. There is a huge difference between figuring out what was done and being able to correctly ascribe the motivations for doing it, assuming it was motivated in the first place. That said, as I already mentioned, there are a lot of overlapping interests. Time Warner Cable, for example was until recently owned by Time Warner, Inc. Guess what else they own? Warner Brothers.

No, thanks. As a fully qualified Telecommunications Engineer with 30 years experience in the industry - 8 years of it in the CATV sector - I really don't need to do any more reading of material from non-authoritative sources. I have plenty of authoritative sources. I might suggest you stop reading such sources, however, because they don't seem to be educating you.

You have just proven my point. All the devices cited above are only available for lease from a cable company.

I really don't want to be offensive, but you just keep piling one completely incorrect statement on top of another. Every one of those devices can be purchased by anyone who wants to purchase one. Scientific Atlanta is not selling them direct to consumers, but it isn't illegal to get one. Motorola is going to be selling the 3416 and I think the 3200. In any case, all you asked was to point to a CC 1.0 device which support SDV. I did.

I'm no fan of the CATV companies, but this actually does bring up something which isn't quite fair for the CATV companies. What happens if a box is lost or stolen? The CATV company has two choices, it can implement a policy of just eating the cost, or it can charge the customer for losing the box. The thing is, if the customer is charged for the box, then by law he owns it. If the box happens to turn up, the customer is by no means required to return it, but if the CATV company finds it, they are required to either return the box or the money to the user. The Police regularly find numbers of stolen boxes and turn them over to the CATV company, and it costs the CATV company a good bit of change to track down the owners.

The other option is to not charge the customer for lost or stolen boxes, but in that case there is nothing to prevent a good number of users from "losing" one cable box after another. It also winds up with large percentages of disconnecting customers not bothering to return the box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylab

There are no navigation devices available to purchase in the marketplace that offer "two-way" services like sdv using cablecard 1.0.

Saying soomething over and over does not make it true. I can drive over to my local Electonics store and have them order one of these items if Iso choose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylab

My point is that cable is trying to force people to lease their boxes rather than purchasing navigation devices on the marketplace by using sdv to deliver what has always been "one-way" programming.

I know your point. It's wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylab

Its really not that hard of a concept.

No one said it's difficult, just wrong. Being easy doesn't make it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylab

If you love cable so much then buy some stock and I've got a bridge to sell you.

1. I despise many of the practices of the Cable Companies, including both my local ones. The fact they are guilty of many excesses and failings in no way proves they are guilty of this.

2. Their being guilty of the failing of which you charge them does not mean their stock is going to fail, so your point eludes me. Clearly this is meant to be some sort of slur agianst my mental faculties, but it fails dismally in that respect, as well.

No, thanks. As a fully qualified Telecommunications Engineer with 30 years experience in the industry - 8 years of it in the CATV sector - I really don't need to do any more reading of material from non-authoritative sources. I have plenty of authoritative sources. I might suggest you stop reading such sources, however, because they don't seem to be educating you.

I can't believe any of us non-authoritative, uneducation doofs even post here! Until we have 8 years in the CATV sector, at least.

I really don't want to be offensive, but you just keep piling one completely incorrect statement on top of another. Every one of those devices can be purchased by anyone who wants to purchase one. Scientific Atlanta is not selling them direct to consumers, but it isn't illegal to get one. Motorola is going to be selling the 3416 and I think the 3200.

They can not, or will not be authorised, in most cases though.

While technically not against the law to privately purchase such hardware , it is well within the right of providers to deny authorisation of such 3rd party procured fixed security boxes.

The box providers have generally not sold their non CC boxes on the open market, but just to providers, who may have the option of selling their boxes, but in the USA have chosen not to.

__________________
Series 2 234 Hr Lifetime.
Window XP and Ubuntu Linux on my PCs.
Watching more and more in HD direct now.

While its true that the old embedded security versions would never get authorized the new the host/CableCARD versions should be able to be authorized.

actually I could be wrong but I believe the proprietary boxes ARE NOT Cablelabs verified so the cable company can say 'no verification- no connection'- looks like Moto only has something called HDT-300 verified- which appears to be an ATSC/Cablecard HD STB that was to be in retail in 2004 but looks like maybe it was just vaporware? And I see nothing from SA/Cisco on the list.

actually I could be wrong but I believe the proprietary boxes ARE NOT Cablelabs verified so the cable company can say 'no verification- no connection'- looks like Moto only has something called HDT-300 verified- which appears to be an ATSC/Cablecard HD STB that was to be in retail in 2004 but looks like maybe it was just vaporware? And I see nothing from SA/Cisco on the list.

Maybe one can get an unverified device hooked up by chance someplaces but I wouldn't assume any particular head end would allow it.

I seem to remember reading about an off the shelf cable STB with OTA tuners from SA, but its been awhile. They've probably watched Tivo struggle with the cable companies, or perhaps they just announced it as a bargaining chip.

Cox Fairfax added NFL Network HD today. It's showing as "channel not available" on my Series 3. I called tech support (at about 10:30 pm) and played dumb. The guy said the best he could do was schedule a technician to find my missing channel. He had no idea about SDV. He also said they weren't allowed to send reset signals to cable cards because it might "melt your TV."

He appeared to believe that sending signals to cable cards can cause them to overheat or possible screw up the firmware in your TV. I'm guessing that the guy on duty at 10:30 on a Tuesday is told to not try anything extreme.

You can add 1653 - TBSHD
I do think it's a bit unfair to say 2 to 78 are SDV without a note that they're the digital simulcast of analog channels that you still receive, you just don't get the digital versions (same resolution, just a little more noise).

__________________
- Sony S1 from 2001 with CacheCard+Ethernet
- Series 3 1TB, now with new power supply!
- Premiere

I had a tech out today because the signals on a frequency are low. While he was here I asked about SDV and he said it's coming to South Jersey in 4Q of this year.

I'm guessing the SDV dongle won't be ready by that time. He did say that only low traffic channels will be put on SDV, but he also said existing channels could be moved to SDV.

On the plus side he mentioned a lot more HD channels are coming.

Expect those new HD channels to be SDV. Every new HD channel we've gotten in Austin is SDV. I'm guessing it makes sense since there are still not many folks with HDTVs, so it's relatively rare for anyone to be watching those channels.

__________________
- Sony S1 from 2001 with CacheCard+Ethernet
- Series 3 1TB, now with new power supply!
- Premiere

Ran across this, most interesting to note is the ratio. It says that a 1:1 ratio between customers and channels is optimal for SDV. This would mean they'd need approximately four times as many nodes. I wonder how much that'd cost.

Ran across this, most interesting to note is the ratio. It says that a 1:1 ratio between customers and channels is optimal for SDV. This would mean they'd need approximately four times as many nodes. I wonder how much that'd cost.

Dude, you missed the point again. The 1:1 ratio is optimal for unicast not SDV.

Quote:

By the time SDV starts rolling out in Asia and Europe, we may be into the next phase of the technology. Specifically switched unicast, which is designed to provide personalized video streams (and new revenue opportunities via targeted advertising). Switched unicast becomes feasible when the number of set-tops in a service group approaches a 1:1 ratio with the number of video streams being served.

Expect those new HD channels to be SDV. Every new HD channel we've gotten in Austin is SDV. I'm guessing it makes sense since there are still not many folks with HDTVs, so it's relatively rare for anyone to be watching those channels.

He mentions some would be and some wouldn't be. They just added TBS-HD yesterday and it's not SDV. Unfortunately it's not in the guide data yet so while I can tune it I can't schedule recordings on it.

I know in computer networking that broadcast is the opposite of unicast. I see broadcast as the conventional delivery method and unicast as SDV.

SDV is community sharing of a subset of a broadcast channels. The 100 channels (example number only) that are currently being broadcast in the SDV system are broadcast to all users in the node. The same commercials on Monday Night Football are shown on all TVs in the node.

Think of SDV as a subset broadcast.

Unicast (which the article refers to as the next generation of technology) is a unique channel distributed just for you (hence the 0.99:1 requirement - slight discount for off televisions). In this case, you can customize commercials for each user in the network.

I know in computer networking that broadcast is the opposite of unicast. I see broadcast as the conventional delivery method and unicast as SDV.

SDV is quite analgous to multicast in the data networking world. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the CableLabs folks drafted their SDV requirements from the IGMP RFC's.

Broadcast : all datatreams/channels are sent simultaneously to all receivers

Unicast : a single datastream/channel is sent to a single receiver

Multicast (simplified description) : Imagine a tree, where the source of all data/channels is at the trunk, and all of the receivers are the leaves. In between the trunk and leaves, at branching points, are filtering agents. In the data world, these are multicast (typically IGMP) enabled routers, in the SDV world they are SDV-enabled nodes.

When a client wants to receive data/channels, it sends a message towards the trunk. All of the filtering agents between that particular leaf and the trunk now know that the leaf wants to receive that data/channel, and log that info into a table. Think of it as punching a hole in a firewall, allowing specific data to flow through that firewall.

When data/channels arrive at a filtering agent, the agent consults its table to see who is actively listening for this data/channel. It then selectively sends the data/channels to only those leafs who want to receive that data/channel. Conversely, data is not sent to leaves who did not explicitly tell someone that they wanted that data. This is where the bandwidth savings are.

When a client is done receiving data/channels (changes channels, turns off computer, etc), it sends a message towards the trunk. All of the filtering agents between that particular leaf and the trunk now know that the leaf does not want to receive that data/channel, and removes that info from the table. The hole in the firewall is now plugged.

When a client is done receiving data/channels (changes channels, turns off computer, etc), it sends a message towards the trunk. All of the filtering agents between that particular leaf and the trunk now know that the leaf does not want to receive that data/channel, and removes that info from the table. The hole in the firewall is now plugged.

This is the SDV requirement that has always puzzled me as to how TiVo will be able to do this with a dongle. TiVo doesn't know if you are watching a channel. The TV could be turned off and it doesn't know this. If not done properly it would put an added burden on the SDV node.

__________________Comcast, Cox, TW, Charter and BHN are cabal companies.
(That is not a spelling error. Check the definition.)

I don't think the cable box knows if you are actually watching the TV or not either. I think the system assumes that every cable box will be on and tuned to a channel at all times. The hope is that many of them are tuned to the same channels.

This is the SDV requirement that has always puzzled me as to how TiVo will be able to do this with a dongle. TiVo doesn't know if you are watching a channel. The TV could be turned off and it doesn't know this. If not done properly it would put an added burden on the SDV node.

True enough. Not necessarily a TiVo-specific problem, either. It's also a problem for vanilla set top boxes as well. If the box is just sitting there, tuning/recording a channel for hours on end, how do you determine if it's safe to yank the SDV stream away from it ?

The safe answer is to have the STB continuously tell the nodes upstream that it's still actively tuned to that channel, and that they should still allow that stream to flow.

However, knowing how the cableco's work (read : try to scrounge every penny, and actively piss off customers in the process), they'll likely propose a time limit, or have the box try to query the user to see if it's safe to yank the stream.

The safe answer is to have the STB continuously tell the nodes upstream that it's still actively tuned to that channel, and that they should still allow that stream to flow.

However, knowing how the cableco's work (read : try to scrounge every penny, and actively piss off customers in the process), they'll likely propose a time limit, or have the box try to query the user to see if it's safe to yank the stream.

I'm pretty sure they'll use a time limit since many people just leave their boxes on all the time. If someone tuned to a SDV channel and then went away for a weekend it would tie up a SDV stream when no one is using it, which defeats the purpose of SDV.

What will probably happen is that near the end of the time limit there will be a popup asking if you are still watching the channel. If you don't answer, the SDV switches off and is replaced by a popup telling you to push okay or something to retune the channel.

For DVRs, the cablebox/dongle will have to be smart enough to tell the host that it's recording (or keep refreshing the request) so that the SDV stream isn't yanked while the box is recording.

Has TiVo explicitly said that they will deliver a fix to the SDV problem? Or are we still hoping to pressure TWC et al to not use SDV?

Can an S2 (which is still connected to the cable company's digital converter box) *record* in HD? If so, and MRV is becomes reality, could that recording then be transferred from the S2 to the S3 (assuming that the recording is not flagged as copyrighted)?

I can see why there'd be no reason to transfer an HD recording from an S3 to an S2 (S2 cannot display HD) but I can see a very good reason for allowing the transfer from an S2 to an S3.

__________________
Two S2s with lifetime subscription
One (new) S3 with VIP lifetime subscription